This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 |
I think it’s become clear from the history of the talk page that the Article needs to specifically mention Marianne Middelveen. It appears most who come to this article have also found her journal entries about the subject at the tippy top of Google. It is not clear to almost anyone why her reports should be excluded. It invites conspiracy. —- Now I’m familiar with the Charles E Holeman society and why it’s not the most scientifically trustworthy organization— But Most people don’t and it is a relevant part of the history of “Morgellons” - I volunteer, or wish to tap the hat of someone else duly inclined to add the relevant info to this article— to add a section refereicing the Charles E Holmes foundation, what it is, why it exists, and why it’s not trusted in the scientific community. I think this will be helpful to everyone. In addition, there isn’t really any other place that gives a clear summary of this outside of wikipedia. It takes a versed understadning research publications to really make sense of it— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cambroo (talk • contribs) 00:13, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
This edit request to Morgellons has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Morgellons (/mɔːrˈdʒɛlənz/) is the informal name of a self-diagnosed, unconfirmed skin condition in which individuals have sores that they believe contain some kind of fibers.[1][2] Morgellons is poorly characterized but the general medical consensus is that it is a form of delusional parasitosis; the sores are the result of compulsive scratching, and the fibers, when analysed, turn out to originate from textiles.
Please change ‘unconfirmed’ to ‘unexplained’ due to reasons discussed in talk discussion - (bias/generalization), also, the overwhelming consissis- regardless of origins, is that the combination of symptoms that represent a “Morgellons” descriton, have been adopted by the medical community widely in research— please allow changes so so that the first sentence reads
Please change
))
Cambroo (talk) 03:01, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
References
Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the ((edit extended-protected))
template. Alexbrn (talk) 05:24, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
This edit request to Morgellons has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Morgellons (/mɔːrˈdʒɛlənz/) is the informal name of a self-diagnosed, unconfirmed skin condition in which individuals have sores that they believe contain some kind of fibers.[1][2] Morgellons is poorly characterized but the general medical consensus is that it is a form of delusional parasitosis; the sores are the result of compulsive scratching, and the fibers, when analysed, turn out to originate from textiles.
Mary Leitao,[3] a mother who rejected the medical diagnosis of her son's delusional parasitosis, named the supposed disease in 2002. She revived it from a letter written by a physician in the mid-17th century.[4] Leitao and others involved in her Morgellons Research Foundation successfully lobbied members of the U.S. Congress and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to investigate the condition in 2006.[5][6] CDC researchers issued the results of their multi-year study in January 2012, indicating that no disease organisms were present in people with so-called "Morgellons", that the fibers were likely cotton, and concluded that the condition was "similar to more commonly recognized conditions such as delusional infestation".[7][8]
Please move the last point of the last sentence of the lead, “; the sores are the result of compulsive scratching, and the fibers, when analysed, turn out to originate from textiles.” Please omit it from the lead and move it to the second paragraph After the line that reference that exact study’s hypothesis,
“CDC researchers issued the results of their multi-year study in January 2012, indicating that no disease organisms were present in people with so-called "Morgellons", that the fibers were likely cotton, and concluded that the condition was "similar to more commonly recognized conditions such as delusional infestation".”
So that the first two paragrpahs would read
Cambroo (talk) 03:10, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
References
Cutis2012
was invoked but never defined (see the help page).Gazette
was invoked but never defined (see the help page).((cite web))
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (help)
((cite journal))
: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
The article lead claims the pronounciation is (/mɔːrˈdʒɛlənz/). Note the dʒ -- which is the "soft g", pronounced like jam or gin. Wiktionary agrees with this 'soft g' pronounciation but it's unsourced and may simply have come from this article.
The second paragraph of the society & culture section claims "She chose the name Morgellons disease (with a hard g)". A "hard g" would be (/mɔːrˈɡɛlənz/), with ɡ, pronounced like go or get. Note: the 'hard g' claim is not in either of the citations given for that sentence, so I'm not clear where it comes from. However, the OED agrees with this 'hard g' pronounciation and should probably be used as the definitive source.
Cf. Hard_and_soft_G which explains "The sound of a hard ⟨g⟩ ... is usually the voiced velar plosive [ɡ] (as in gangrene or golf), while ... the sound of soft ⟨g⟩ is the affricate /dʒ/, as in general, giant, and gym."
Recommendation: be bold and mark the pronounciation as (/mɔːrˈɡɛlənz/), with a 'hard g', and update the wiktionary pronounciation too. I lack the edits required to fix this protected page, however, so am also hesitating on the wiktionary edit for the time being.
Otherwise, at a minimum these should be marked [[[Morgellons#(({section))}|contradictory]]]
Tofof (talk) 16:17, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
I think that this new research absolutely needs to be included/mentioned in the main page of the Morgellons illness in some form in order to make it unbiased and factual:
History of Morgellons disease: from delusion to definition [1]
Excerpt from abstract:
....Because individuals afflicted with the disease may have crawling or stinging sensations and sometimes believe they have an insect or parasite infestation, most medical practitioners consider MD a purely delusional disorder. Clinical studies supporting the hypothesis that MD is exclusively delusional in origin have considerable methodological flaws and often neglect the fact that mental disorders can result from underlying somatic illness. In contrast, rigorous experimental investigations show that this skin affliction results from a physiological response to the presence of an infectious agent. Recent studies from that point of view show an association between MD and spirochetal infection in humans, cattle, and dogs. These investigations have determined that the cutaneous filaments are not implanted textile fibers, but are composed of the cellular proteins keratin and collagen and result from overproduction of these filaments in response to spirochetal infection. Further studies of the genetics, pathogenesis, and treatment of MD are warranted.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
from 2016: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27789971/
from 2018: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5811176/
spirochetal dermatitis, it includes several photos of the actual microfibres growing inside of epitelial lalers, and some pictured emerging from the layer. GROSS! If you had this in your skin, of course you would feel it. Happy are those who have the fibres coiled and coming out in gray puss. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.64.17.186 (talk • contribs)
https://res.mdpi.com/healthcare/healthcare-06-00033/article_deploy/healthcare-06-00033-v2.pdf?filename=&attachment=1 Yet another source, yet another photograph. It deals with borrelia, and ingrown fibre is a side-photo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.64.17.186 (talk • contribs)
collapse per WP:TPG
|
---|
First of all, thank you all for participating in the discussion, I never expected this to be such a crowded place. And I didn't come to edit the article, anyway, I just objected to the obvious bias of "this is a self-diagnosed condition of delusional schisophreniacs". I believe the article could focus more on the point of the illness instead of on the actors, which is currently 80% of it. The original diagnosis 200 or 300 years ago should be mentioned first, etc... ...but this is what I read, and with that I wish you a good luck and a nice weekend... Is Plos One a reputable source? I am very confused by this point. Galileo Galilei was junk, discredited author as well. No sources supported his claims, moreover, no reputable journals would publish his heretic works. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0029908 "Morgellons is a poorly characterized constellation of symptoms, with the primary manifestations involving the skin." "This unexplained dermopathy was rare among this population... No common underlying medical condition or infectious source was identified, similar to more commonly recognized conditions such as delusional infestation." ...see, it doesn't say that it WAS delusional infestation, just that it is similar. But then, their screening of patients was inviting all the users of drugs which cause delusions and paranoia, instead of excluding them. "Persons who suffer from this unexplained dermopathy sometimes also report various non-cutaneous symptoms such as generalized fatigue, difficulty concentrating, short-term memory loss and depressed mood. Some report co-morbid conditions such as chronic fatigue syndrome, fibromyalgia, neurocognitive deficits, neurological conditions such as multiple sclerosis, and psychiatric disorders.." ...but then, those symproms suggest a deeper cause than just a joint or two. Cases are collected only from 2006 to 2008. "serum specimens were collected 130 days after illness onset [6]..." Even if the claim is mistaken, they at the same time show the symptoms onset as far as 1983. The study sample had about 50% of drug users, exactly what the other "junk" studies claim makes hard to filter out cases with a common origin. Doesn't contain numerous high magnification photographs of deep layer ingrown fibres. Doesn't even mention the magnification of the photograph (!!!). There is only one photograph with revelant fibres, at the location there are four types, micrometers thick black and red, and ordinary textile size white and blue. Large part of the work focuses on "Analysis of Fibers or Materials From Non-biopsy Skin Sites", instead of doing analysis of all fibres found in the affected lesion... However it also notices "Excoriated erythematous papules suggestive of arthropod bites", which means ticks. It doesn't seem they even had the technology to extract the capillary-sized fibres, like the newer studies, and analysis of the pigments has not been performed. Also no PCR or dark field microscopy was performed, very limiting the detection abilities of borrelias. What more interesting came out of tha was in the comments: Gluconacebacter xylinus, opportunistic pathogen able of generating wound cellulose fibers. So, while the problem with the reputable sources remains unchanged, the photographs and analysis methods are pouring in: https://www.omicsonline.org/pdfdownload.php?download=morgellons-disease-a-chemical-and-light-microscopic-study-2155-9554.1000140.pdf&aid=5477 So, due to the wikipedia policy, it must be unlinkable, because the company has a business model incompatible with wikipedia standards, one researcher explains: "OMICS International is a true example of predatory publisher. Predatory publishing is the practice of publishing journals that exploit the emerging acceptance of open-access academic journals to undermine peer-review processes (4). The main feature of this type of publication is the publication of content (which can be of a scientific character and even and of a valuable scientific character), without a peer review process, in quite a short amount of time from the day of submission to consideration, for a fairly good amount of money" And continues with explanation: "The biggest problem are the authors who are blinded by the speed of realizing work, which they always need for something (vacancy, work, progress),"... so the continued existence of these journals is in part fuelled by researchers "who can't afford the time" to wait anywhere between several months and FOUR years for the publication of their findings. The second reason is pure convenience. So, this is a very minor disease, affecting just thousands of people globally, why bother. Why would anyone try to replicate this research, when there's no money in it and you would have to be very selective with your patient sample? (If you want a skin condition and not a neuropsychiatric case.) You can expect a wikipedia article update sometimes in 2035 to 2040. Yet, the predatory publishing problem will remain, because "The biggest problem in the concept of predatory publishing is that this publicity has brought to the tens of thousands of researchers who have earned Masters and PhD degrees, been awarded with other credentials and certifications, received work and promotion, and gotten employment...", because who doesn't want to advance in their life and instead wait for a miracle for 40 years? No one, that's why. That's why I like the concept promoted at PubMed: judge merit by content quality, by reading it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.64.17.186 (talk • contribs) 14:05, 26 October 2018 (UTC) |
This entire article is outdated and expresses a view point that is no longer the one held by the medical community at large. Citation for this claim can be found here: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5811176/ Do note that it is a Pubmed article from the National institute of health. On a personal note: the threats that have been given here regarding banning, the aggressive dismissive regard given to data not from the assumed unverified pure opinion of those who have moderated it has caused real human suffering.
00:29, 6 January 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.78.137.209 (talk)
“Morgellons (/mɔːrˈdʒɛlənz/) is the informal name of a self-diagnosed, unconfirmed skin condition in which individuals have sores that they believe contain some kind of fibers.”
Why is the the introduction to the Article. It is likely accurate, but it doesn’t fit into nomemclature used by the 2008 cdc study or MayoClinic official description.
The two sources used as to the source of the summary seem, well, arbitrary and carefully selected. It appears to be someone strongly commenting on the topic, which genuinely irks me..
Can we look into cleaning this up? Giving it a more medical and/or neutral tonality.
MayoClinic for reference https://www.mayoclinic.org/morgellons-disease/art-20044996
“Morgellons disease is an uncommon, poorly understood condition characterized by small fibers or other particles emerging from skin sores. People with this condition often report feeling as if something were crawling on or stinging their skin.”
What would be the problem with this as an introduction. It is more accurate and certainly carries less of the writers bias.
Thoughts? Cambroo (talk) 00:42, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
This entire article is outdated and expresses a view point that is no longer the one held by the medical community at large. Citation for this claim can be found here: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5811176/ Do note that it is a Pubmed article from the National institute of health. On a personal note: the threats that have been given here regarding banning, the aggressive dismissive regard given to data not from the assumed unverified pure opinion of those who have moderated it has caused real human suffering.
00:29, 6 January 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.78.137.209 (talk)
This edit request to Morgellons has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Morgellons has been associated with Lyme Disease. Laboratory testing is suggested. 134.197.0.21 (talk) 22:08, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Some people have linked Morgellons "to another illness viewed skeptically by most doctors, chronic Lyme disease".[1]
References
I know that Im probably using improper format or not adding this in the appropriate place, but I keep reading about sources people have tried to use as being not good enough or they are from a biased source.
In regards to the lead section of the morgellons page, its not that its outdated (although it is) its more to the fact it is written in an obviously biased way. The CDC study plainly states "We were not able to conclude based on this study whether this unexplained dermopathy represents a new condition as has been proposed by those who use the term Morgellons, or wider recognition of an existing condition such as delusional infestation, with which it shares a number of clinical and epidemiologic features." Page text.Cite error: A <ref>
tag is missing the closing </ref>
(see the help page).
A study publish in the Clinical Cosmetic and Investigational Dermatology[1] claims "rigorous experimental investigations show that this skin affliction results from a physiological response to the presence of an infectious agent."[2] 108.162.148.115 (talk) 04:17, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
References
The National Institute of Health: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4328066/
"Morgellons disease (MD) is a complex skin disorder characterized by ulcerating lesions that have protruding or embedded filaments."
[...]"recent studies indicate that MD is a true somatic illness associated with tickborne infection, that the filaments are keratin and collagen in composition and that they result from proliferation and activation of keratinocytes and fibroblasts in the skin. Previously, spirochetes have been detected in the dermatological specimens from four MD patients, thus providing evidence of an infectious process."
Page needs revision. Sagémoto (talk) 04:55, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
This edit request to Morgellons has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
This information is outdated and proved incorrect. I site this article by https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5072536/#!po=1.42857 174.207.200.135 (talk) 20:57, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
Recent peer-reviewed review articles cement Morgellons status as a somatic illness associated with spirochetal infection. This is entirely separate from delusions of parisitosis which is a different, although very real, diagnosis altogether. This Wikipedia article needs to be updated as it is disseminating false and misleading information.
Grimm, J. (2021). Morgellons Disease and Its Association with Spirochetes and Lyme Disease. Asian Journal of Applied Science and Engineering, 10, 38-41.
69.3.179.154 (talk) 15:56, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
Jase Grimm University of the People · Health Science Bachelor of Science
The third and final sentence of the opening paragraph finishes with '...the fibers, when analysed, are consistently found to have originated from clothings and other textiles.' Leaving aside the misspelling of 'clothings', the category error consists of the syntax claiming that clothing is a form of textile. However, clothing is not a textile, it is made from textiles (usually). As there is a quote further down in the piece that reads, 'cotton and other textiles', I believe that the 'clothings [sic]' should be changed to 'cotton'. I would make the change but the page, of course, is locked down. RobotBoy66 (talk) 07:39, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
Does this source meet the requirements? If so, there is plenty more research which makes a strong case against the Delusional Parisitosis explanation. The CDC even states in its findings that it "indirectly concluded" that it was a psychological disorder because it couldn't identify a pathogen involved. I'm a newbie to wikipedia and dont know much of how it works. How and who decides if changes are to be made and what those changes will be? This article is erroneous in many ways and is damaging to sufferers involved and i would appreciate help in trying to rectify this. I accept that this article uses multiple sources to support the claim that there is a consensus of delusional parisitosis but are all sources and their findings treated equal? How are conflicting findings dealt with? The DP conclusion is based on having no other explanation available. No evidence. Thank you.
"Filaments associated with MD appear beneath unbroken skin [1,2], thus demonstrating that they are not self-implanted. Filaments have been observed protruding from and attached to a matrix of epithelial cells [3]. This finding demonstrates that the filaments are of human cellular origin and are not textile fibers. These filaments have not been matched with known textile fibers, and dye-extracting solvents have failed to release coloration; the fibers are also very strong and heat resistant"
"Textile fibers have never been produced in this manner, and the suggestion that these unusual formations are manufactured textile fibers is not credible"
May 15, 2012, Clinical & Experimental Dermatology Research Morgellons Disease: A Chemical and Light Microscopic Study
https://thecehf.org/research/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8004:1080:22B3:D589:BAF4:EDD7:E39C (talk) 13:12, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
There were medical studies done in 2016 and perhaps later looking into bacteria connected to this previously considered psychological illness. 2600:1702:4570:DE0:DC74:A445:EF80:1C59 (talk) 06:51, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
Before I go any further are you able to confirm that this is an acceptable secondary source? It is a review of a range of primary sources so I believe it is. Thanks.
History of Morgellons disease: from delusion to definition Marianne J Middelveen, Melissa C Fesler, and Raphael B Stricker
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5811176/ 2001:8004:1101:E8EB:3CF4:2AFF:FE8F:B9B6 (talk) 16:02, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
It almost seems like I'm encountering opposition in this. As though the fanatical warrior skeptics are here defending science and reason from the attacks of pseudoscience and conspiracy theorists. I say this because of the way all attempts are quickly shut down on a technicality and there seems to be no willingness for discussion let alone to entertain making changes. Why is this so difficult? I was told that the below secondary source I would like to use is actually only primary source because the author reviews their own articles. I went through the primary sources the review references and only 7 out of 124 are the authors own sources. How does this justify it being downgraded to a primary source? I was told to look in the archives but I can't find how to access the archives. I see the term "neutral point of view" being used to describe the desired approach to authorship. I don't believe this article satisfies that aspiration.
History of Morgellons disease: from delusion to definition Marianne J Middelveen, Melissa C Fesler, and Raphael B Stricker
This is an excerpt regarding the CDC study in relation to fibre studies. Although two citations are used to support the claim "the fibers, when analysed, are consistently found to have originated from cotton and other textiles" they both rely on a singular source which is the study mentioned below. It's findings are of the poorest quality as admitted by the authors themselves and this clearly should not be relied upon.
"The CDC–Kaiser Permanente Northern California–Armed Forces Institute of Pathology collaborative study (CDC study) selected their cohort via a retrospective search through medical records.33 This study had significant flaws. The case definition did not require the presence of fibers embedded in or projecting from skin; therefore, selection was on the basis of self-reported cases, and resulted in a heterogeneous group of subjects. Eligibility to participate in the study was limited to those enrolled in a Kaiser Permanente plan. The number of participants diminished as the study progressed: whereas 467 subjects were identified by a search of Kaiser Permanente electronic records, cultures for pathogens were conducted on only 28 subjects, and fibers were collected from only 12 subjects.33 Fiber analysis was performed and cotton-textile fibers identified, but the authors admitted they did not find fibers that were embedded or projecting from skin, and they admitted that they may have introduced cotton fibers at the time of sampling." 2001:8004:1101:E8EB:3CF4:2AFF:FE8F:B9B6 (talk) 00:09, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
This government study clearly indicates that much of the current Wikipedia article on Morgellons needs revision. Please consider basing your Wikipedia article on scientific observation instead of celebrity talk or TV talk shows. The article in its current form indicates that Morgellons is most clearly associated with metal instability, as where modern scientific investigation is finding that Morgellons is associated with infection by various pathogens.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3954163/ "Association of spirochetal infection with Morgellons disease". Published online 2013 Jan 28. Written by: Marianne J Middelveen,1 Divya Burugu,2 Akhila Poruri,2 Jennie Burke,3 Peter J Mayne,1 Eva Sapi,2 Douglas G Kahn,4 and Raphael B Stricker — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.53.146.7 (talk) 03:46, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
Please see WP:MEDRS. With medical claims like this, we stick with established medical science, which is overwhelmingly in favor of the delusional parasitosis explanation.
NLM does not review, evaluate, or judge the quality of individual articles and relies on the scientific publishing process to identify and address problems through published comments, corrections, and retractions (or, as in the case of preprints, withdrawal notices)[2]? EEng 17:10, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
Please consider the following research article:
https://www.dovepress.com/getfile.php?fileID=11375, download text at: https://www.dovepress.com/ by 202.53.146.7 on 20-Nov-2021 "Filament formation associated with spirochetal infection: a comparative approach to Morgellons disease". Clinical, Cosmetic and Investigational Dermatology, 11 November 2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.53.146.7 (talk) 05:27, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5072536/ 2001:56A:F717:3600:8091:5084:A297:752C (talk) 15:52, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
This edit request to Morgellons has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
This entry is criminally incorrect and outdated. Government findings and opinion are completely disregarded. It's currently biased and irresponsible and causing real world negative consequences and an epidemic of undiagnosed lyme disease. It needs to be corrected to help save lives. I've lost 2 people to the illness and 1 to suicide because of the stigma that this entry propagates. It's absolutely critical for the biased individuals editing this page to be removed and an updated entry to be put forth. 76.172.72.212 (talk) 05:54, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
Studies searched for organisms and upon not finding any, had to assume the fibers were textiles.
Fibers were never proven to be textiles. 76.172.72.212 (talk) 06:00, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
from Panoramagram, 25 January 2022:
Enough. First, "Delusional parasitosis" is not a diagnosis in the U.S. DSM-5, nor in the World Health Organization International Classification of Diseases. There is no such mental illness.
The issue here is what the word "Morgellons" means. That determines what the Wikipedia entry is about. Please read the following with the understanding I am not trying to "prove" the Borellia hypothesis.
The U.S. National Institutes of Health rare diseases database (GIRD): https://rarediseases.info.nih.gov/diseases/9805/morgellons refers for Morgellons info only to the sites for the International Lyme and Associated Diseases Society (ILADS) and the Charles H. Holman Foundation. Both ID Morgellons as a physical disease. The NIH sets the standard of orthodoxy for biomedical research in the US.
Any ethical definition of "mainstream scholarship" on medicine includes NIH-funded research published in professional journals. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5072536/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6627092/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3257881/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4328066/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5811176/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3047951/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8643125/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5941186/ Here's a whole page of more studies: https://thecehf.org/research/
These are first-page hits from the NIH research database search of the word "Morgellons;" i.e. this is a major accepted position. Whether Wikipedia editors accept any of these studies or not, and whether they are good research or not, to delete any mention of the fact that both the NIH and professional research journals accept them, and the position exists, is censoring the page.
Here's the Mayo clinic's Morgellons ed page. It shows one way a non-censored report made without accepting the veracity of studies can look: https://www.mayoclinic.org/morgellons-disease/ART-20044996
The idea of causal Borellia sp. with keratin abnormalities was being widely distributed among professionals at least since 2011: https://www.prweb.com/releases/2012/6/prweb9616173.htm. I.E. a subset of researchers has proposed for the past decade to limit the term "Morgellons" to lesions with keratin abnormalities in the presence of Borellia sp. spirochetes, and the NIH is supporting this approach.
Why are Wikipedia editors fighting inclusion of any mention of this fact?
There's a basic problem in the article as it stands: "reliable medical sources" (i.e. non-PsyD MDs) cannot decide what is a mental disorder, just as "reliable psychology sources" cannot decide what is a heart disease. The current article makes the claim that Morgellons is a mental disorder, but the citation needed would be from the mental health field: DSM-5, etc. Instead, the article claims it is a mental disorder which does not exist, and does not give the diagnostic criteria. There aren't any. There's no mental health disorder called Morgellons, or any of the terms like delusional parasitosis being used by people who claim it's a mental disorder. It's a false claim. (I am not saying your opinion is wrong. I am saying it is an opinion, not a fact: a mental disorder is a specific thing.)
This study: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6171510/ points out that the relevant actual DSM-5 diagnosis is Somatic-type Delusional Disorder, and ANY medical definition of Morgellons would make it exclusive from S-tDD.
I have no personal stake in Morgellons. I'm a professional biomedical research educator, and I am concerned about this level of censorship in one of the most visited educational sites in the world. "Delusional parasitosis" and similar terms are used as synonyms for Morgellons to signal a personal belief that it's a delusion. But mental health professions have never erected a diagnosis for Morgellons. It's only one of many meanings people use for the word.
One of the diagnostic criteria of Somatic-type Delusional Disorder is that the skin sensations are not due to another cause (i.e. if you feel crawling sensations in your skin from nerve damage due to diabetic neuropathy, spirochete disease, etc,--it is not S-tDD. If you believe there is something abnormal growing in your skin because there is something abnormal growing in your skin, it is not S-tDD). The difference between an opinion and a diagnosis is that diagnoses can be differentated; this is important because if I decide all recurrent stomachache is "neurosis," (or it's all "ulcers,") I will be unable to tell the difference between my patients with anxiety and my patients with Heliobacter pylori infection. I believe this is the core problem here: "Morgellons" is being used for at least two mutually exclusive different things: a (maybe non-existent) version of Lyme disease or a related illness, and a (definitely non-existent) mental health diagnosis.
The conflict has a factual answer: only licensed mental health professional organizations can establish and define mental disorders. MDs cannot do so. Patients cannot do so. Wikipedia editors cannot do so. Morgellons is not a mental disorder. It is a word, with an interesting and contested history about what it means to various user groups. This means the page needs revision for basic accuracy, both to clarify that neither "Morgellons" nor "delusional parasitosis" are mental disorders, and to give the history of the Morgellons=Lyme definition, the Morgellons=S-tDD definition, and less specific definitions, such as the early social gathering around "I have a mysterious physical cause illness with colored fibers," and the tendency of MDs to coin and use diagnostic-mimicry terms to mean "I can't find anything wrong with this middle-aged female patient and personally think they're delusional."
Biased articles erode the credibility of Wikipedia as a neutral source of reliable info. The answer is not to argue over which way we should completely bias the article, or to pretend Wikipedia can (or should try to) define only one true meaning for this word. The answer is to write an accurate encyclopedia entry. I can edit the page for accuracy, but I won't waste the time if people are going to revert or change all the edits to make the entry erase every definition and citation they don't believe in themselves. I have no interest in "proving" what Morgellons "really" means. Wikipedia cannot make that decision. Morgellons is a word. Like most words, it has multiple definitions. I think giving a neutral, citation-supported overview of the various definitions, with the primary user groups and the history of primary arguments for and critiques of each definition, is the one thing everyone can get behind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Panoramagram (talk • contribs) 18:35, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
Any materials that GARD provides are for information purposes only and do not represent endorsement by or an official position of NCATS, the National Institutes of Health (NIH), or any Federal agency ... The information, data, opinions, and statements linked to from this website are not necessarily those of NCATS, NIH, or any other Federal agency and should not be interpreted, acted on, or represented as such.I sampled the rest of your links and they all appear to be by Marianne Middleveen, a self-employed veterinarian. EEng 01:01, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
Enough. The article is based on reliable medical sources. Until the medical community changes their diagnosis, there is nothing further to be gained from this discussion. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 19:05, 25 December 2021 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
The article is clearly written with bias by a skeptic and is worded to convince the reader of the delusional parisitosis explanation without leaving room for uncertainty or alternative explanations. This is very disappointing and a great disservice to sufferers. Firstly, there is no evidence that confirms delusion being involved. Secondly there is no evidence lesions are self inflicted. Thirdly there is no evidence that Morgellons fibres are textile fibres. All of these are presumptions and there is much evidence that is contrary to them. The claim that the fibers are "consistently" found to be cotton or other textile fibres implies multiple cases of conclusive analysis. The only case with such a finding I'm aware of is the CDC investigation which lacks any methodology or evidence to support it in a conclusive way. There is more recent research which has applied a specific methodology in harvesting and analysis which concludes that the fibres are not consistent with any known natural or synthetic fibres and are dermal in origin as consistently professed by anyone with the condition. How can such a definitive position be put forward when the evidence for it is so weak and while there is completely contradictory evidence in existence? Where is the objectivity and diligence here? This causes real harm and must be re-examined. 2001:8004:1101:E8EB:3CF4:2AFF:FE8F:B9B6 (talk) 11:03, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
Nice oneSo you block anyone that disagrees and don't allow them to respond with citations as requested. Drunk on power. 2001:8004:1101:E8EB:3CF4:2AFF:FE8F:B9B6 (talk) 01:55, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
WP:NOTAFORUM. Could we please now wrap up and hat this (very interesting) discussion? I find it unseemly to taunt believers in Morgellons, and I hope we would find it equally unseemly to taunt those who have any form of delusion. It's unproductive to argue with those who have firmly entrenched delusions-- even more so, those who also don't accept Wikipedia policies and guidelines. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:32, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
|
This is all rather absurd. Experts in the medical community have acknowledged this is a dermatological condition. Wikipedia this is embarrassing. For you. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_ylo=2018&q=morgellons+disease&hl=en&as_sdt=0,21#d=gs_qabs&u=%23p%3Df9l4stjlIg0J Mofitz101 (talk) 01:30, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
Biased and unreliable. Recent peer-reviewed studies contradict some of this information. While nothing seems concrete yet, all facts should be presented. This article should be revised to state all of the facts or deleted (not say any facts at all). The blatant omission of scientific evidence contradicting views in this short, incomplete, misleading summary page is asinine and bordering dangerous. 98.121.231.123 (talk) 16:57, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Recent research suggests that Morgellons Disease may be triggered by tick born infection. The National Institute of Health lists the disease a a filamentous borrelial dermatitis. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5072536/ The Mayo Clinic notes more research is needed to determine the etiology of the illness. https://www.mayoclinic.org/morgellons-disease/ART-20044996 Research has been conducted on individuals suffering from this condition which concluded that this is not a psychosomatic illness. Filaments appear to grow from hair follicles and are comprised@ of keratin and collagen. Some of these filaments fluoresce under ultraviolet light.https://www.longdom.org/open-access/morgellons-disease-a-chemical-and-light-microscopic-study-6353.html#2 Starr Hein (talk) 03:19, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Whether I’m pronouncing it or spelling it right or not my daughter has Morgellons she used to live in California now she lives in Oregon because the heat here made it worse I am appalled that even the medical world acts like it’s not real and it’s not substantial I am just disappointed as a mother that people will not pay attention I have proof that my daughter has an actual disease and it’s not delusional and it’s not made up and she’s not creating it in her own mind funny people excepted monkeypox but they don’t seem to accept Morgellons ? why ?...Why is that how ignorant is our medical society They need to be more open minded and actually lead to a study and stop accusing my daughter being crazy ‼️‼️ Unexceptionable ‼️‼️😢 2601:646:8A00:4DD0:FDCE:1B8:907F:4E85 (talk) 19:59, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I will be making revisions and extensively updating this article with opposing peer-viewed information that contradicts the dated and absurd assumption that this condition is purely somatic. Here's is one article that I will quote amongst others: "Middelveen, Marianne & Stricker, Raphael. (2016). Morgellons disease: A filamentous borrelial dermatitis. International Journal of General Medicine. Volume 9. 349-354. 10.2147/IJGM.S116608. https://doi.org/10.2147/IJGM.S116608 "
Please note I note tolerate bully reversions of updates that I'll make grounded with scientific references. Reduction of diversity of thought and opposing opinions has become a cancer. Without open discourse the light of science will be extinguished.
Let us lay out all the possibilities in this article and try to arrange the possibilities based on data that supports or rejects each respective hypothesis. As the introduction notes this is indeed still a nascent syndrome who's complexities are still being unravelled. Edmbugger (talk) 11:55, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
should read "Please note I will not tolerate...." " instead of "Please note I will tolerate.... " in the 2nd last paragraph Edmbugger (talk) 11:58, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
might seem like downright misinformationYou are saying that it might seem that way to someone who does not understand how Wikipedia works. It might also seem that way to someone who does not understand how science works. Some scientific papers are bad, and those are left at the roadside. Wikipedia just reflects that. If it did not, and cited those bad papers as if they were good papers, that would not just seem like misinformation to misinformed people, it would actually be misinformation. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:05, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
Let us lay out all the possibilities in this article and try to arrange the possibilities based on data that supports or rejects each respective hypothesis.Us? Nosotros es mucha gente; please review what Wikipedia doesn't do.
I will not toleraterings bells ... blocks are preventative. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:31, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Whether I’m pronouncing it or spelling it right or not my daughter has Morgellons she used to live in California now she lives in Oregon because the heat here made it worse I am appalled that even the medical world acts like it’s not real and it’s not substantial I am just disappointed as a mother that people will not pay attention I have proof that my daughter has an actual disease and it’s not delusional and it’s not made up and she’s not creating it in her own mind funny people excepted monkeypox but they don’t seem to accept Morgellons ? why ?...Why is that how ignorant is our medical society They need to be more open minded and actually lead to a study and stop accusing my daughter being crazy ‼️‼️ Unexceptionable ‼️‼️😢 2601:646:8A00:4DD0:FDCE:1B8:907F:4E85 (talk) 19:59, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
This edit request to Morgellons has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The article on Morgellons from the National Institute of Health needs to be included in Further Reading section of this article. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5072536/#!po=8.06452 Morgellons Help (talk) 13:49, 25 November 2022 (UTC)